The Electoral Marksmanship of Pro- and Anti-Gun-Control Spenders

by J T Stepleton | 2018-03-09

Opponents of gun control spent big in 2015 and 2016, and it was a near-bullseye shot. Supporters of gun control also had some success to show for their campaign spending. But most of the gun-related war chests did not go directly to candidates or political parties, making independent spending1 the main vehicle for all of these groups to influence candidate elections. This power structure is important to consider in light of recent events and the ongoing gun debate.

The Institute looked at the independent spending from both sides of the gun control debate and discovered that opponents of gun control spent far more than proponents. Both sides preferred independent spending over direct contributions and both heavily targeted federal candidates. The majority of the money from each side was spent on races in which their preferred candidate won, but gun control opponents were the clear victors in 2015 and 2016.

Anti-gun-control interests independently spent at least $53.5 million targeting federal and state candidates in 2015 and 2016, a little under seven times as much as the $8 million they gave directly to candidates in the last four election cycles combined. Very few economic interests collectively spent more targeting candidates in 2015 and 2016. Of no surprise, the National Rifle Association (NRA) accounted for over 99 percent of the independent spending by opponents of gun control.

Opponents of gun control enjoyed remarkable success in the 2015 and 2016 elections. Eighty-eight percent of the $53.5 million spent was invested in elections in which the groups’ preferred candidate prevailed: $34.7 million was spent opposing candidates who lost, and $15.4 million was spent supporting candidates who won.

Almost all (99 percent) of the anti-gun-control spending targeted federal candidates, and virtually every dime of that was spent by the NRA. Spending on the presidential race reached $31.4 million, but the NRA also bet big and won in congressional races. Three of the top five NRA targets were Senate Democrats who unsuccessfully challenged incumbent Republicans—in all, those races attracted $10.5 million in opposition expenditures.

Table 1: Top Five Federal Targets of Anti-Gun-Control Independent Spending, 2015 and 2016

Candidate

Jurisdiction

Party

Office

Position

Result

Total

Hillary Clinton

US

Democratic

U.S. President

Oppose

Lost

$19,759,950

Donald Trump

US

Republican

U.S. President

Support

Won

$10,646,157

Deborah Ross

NC

Democratic

U.S. Senate

Oppose

Lost

$5,587,241

Jason Kander

MO

Democratic

U.S. Senate

Oppose

Lost

$2,504,346

Evan Bayh

IN

Democratic

U.S. Senate

Oppose

Lost

$2,447,493

Opponents of gun control did not fare as well in in 2015 and 2016 state elections.2 The top two targets were in North Carolina: incumbent Governor Pat McCrory and attorney general candidate Buck Newton, both of whom the NRA supported3 with $96,393 and $83,213 in spending, respectively. McCrory and Newton both narrowly lost in the general election.

Table 2: Top Five State Targets of Anti-Gun-Control Independent Spending, 2015 and 2016

Target

Jurisdiction

Party

Office

Position

Result

Total

Pat McCrory

NC

Republican

Governor

Support

Lost

$96,396

Buck Newton

NC

Republican

Attorney General

Support

Lost

$83,213

Patrick Morrisey

WV

Republican

Attorney General

Support

Won

$39,723

Bill Cole

WV

Republican

Governor

Support

Lost

$39,723

Laura Woods

CO

Republican

State Senate, District 19

Support

Lost

$12,112

Figure 2: Proponents of Gun Control

Pro-gun-control spenders dished out at least $3.5 million independently targeting candidates in 2015 and 2016, which is 176 percent less than their opponents spent. Still, a solid 80 percent of that money went to elections in which their preferred candidate won. In addition, pro-gun-control donors gave $2.7 million directly to candidates in 2015 and 2016, outpacing anti-gun-control donors by $675,497. Two groups accounted for 96 percent of the money spent independently: Americans for Responsible Solutions ($2.8 million) and Everytown for Gun Safety ($582,967).

Like their opponents, the majority (84 percent) of the pro-gun-control spending targeted federal candidates. Their crowning achievement was unseating U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH); Americans for Responsible Solutions spent $2.5 million and Everytown for Gun Safety spent $38,559 opposing the New Hampshire Republican, who lost by a fraction of one percent of the vote. Others opposed by gun control proponents, however, did win, including President Donald Trump, U.S. Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-VA), and U.S. Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY).

Table 3: Top Five Federal Targets of Pro-Gun-Control Independent Spending, 2015 and 2016

Target

Jurisdiction

Party

Office

Position

Result

Total

Kelly Ayotte

NH

Republican

U.S. Senate

Oppose

Lost

$2,575,953

Donald Trump

US

Republican

U.S. President

Oppose

Won

$99,634

Barbara Comstock

VA

Republican

U.S. House, District 10

Oppose

Won

$96,723

John Mica

FL

Republican

U.S. House, District 7

Oppose

Lost

$59,943

Lee Zeldin

NY

Republican

U.S. House, District 1

Oppose

Won

$44,192

Supporters of gun control spent $541,548 targeting state candidates.4 Only 25 percent was invested in races in which their preferred candidate won. Everytown is responsible for three-quarters of that total and all of the spending on the top two targets: Iowa State Rep. Ken Rizer (R-68) and New Hampshire State Sen. Kevin Avard (R-12). Everytown collectively spent $243,231 opposing5Rizer and Avard, both of whom won reelection.

Table 4: Top Five State Targets of Pro-Gun-Control Independent Spending, 2015 and 2016

Target

Jurisdiction

Party

Office

Position

Result

Total

Ken Rizer

IA

Republican

State House, District 68

Oppose

Won

$124,397

Kevin Avard

NH

Republican

State Senate, District 12

Oppose

Won

$118,834

Michael McAuliffe

IL

Republican

State House, District 20

Oppose

Won

$73,518

David Hann*

MN

Republican

State Senate, District 48

Oppose

Lost

$39,056

Sarah Anderson*

MN

Republican

State House, District 44A

Oppose

Won

$39,056

Mary Shapiro*

MN

Republican

State House,District 48A

Oppose

Lost

$39,056

* Everytown targeted all three Minnesota Republicans with $39,056 in independent expenditures per candidate. The transactions indicate they were collectively targeted by Everytown.

1. Independent spending is money spent in an election to support or oppose candidates without coordinating with the candidates.

2. The Institute collected independent spending data from 30 states in 2015 and 2016. Anti-gun-control groups spent money independently targeting candidates in 18 of those states, as well as candidates in federal races.

3. North Carolina’s disclosure laws include a loophole that obscures the position of electioneering communications, which is why the position of expenditures targeting McCrory and Newton are reported as "unknown." However, the NRA explicitly endorsed McCrory and Newton.

4. Anti-gun-control groups spent independently in 9 of the 30 states, as well as in federal elections, where the Institute collected data in 2015 and 2016.

5. The position of the expenditures opposing Avard were reported as "unknown" but news reports indicate Everytown spent in opposition to his candidacy.